> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Alessandro Vesely > Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 11:05 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] comments on draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-06 > > The last two paragraphs of Section 3.1 are not related to any specific > field.
The section is entitled "New ARF Feedback Type", and those last two paragraphs are discussing the report type and its structure. Seems legitimate to me. > In addition, since you agreed to move the sentences that > describe the failure-to-report relationship "to just above section 3.1" > --thereby decoupling them from the A-R field-- Section 3 will host one > more statement which is about the overall semantics rather than any > specific field. That title is at least misleading. We aren't defining a whole new report format here. We're defining a new report type that has a few new fields but otherwise has the same format as any other ARF message. And the new report type itself is referenced in an existing field. It's all about fields. But if it will get us to publication, how about calling it "ARF Extension for Authentication Failure Reporting"? > > Similarly, the document recognizes five specific types of > > authentication failures about which reports can be generated, and thus > > the title "Authentication Failure Types" seems a perfectly good title > > for a section in which to enumerate them. > > Yes it is. I meant the second sentence in the first paragraph of > Section 3.1: > > A new feedback type of "auth-failure" is defined as an extension to > Section 8.2 of [ARF]. See Section 3.3 for details. We can just remove the reference then. > BTW, Section 8.2 of [ARF] is about the *Interpretation* of the report > format. You probably mean Section 7.3 (but shouldn't such reference > belong to the IANA Considerations section?) Yes, "per Section 7.3" is probably more precise. > After those two lines, the section continues with several fields > specifications. Not all fields, just some. A reader may wander why > Delivery-Result is listed here while Auth-Failure itself is not. A > title of "New ARF Feedback Type" doesn't help. I don't agree. Section 3.1 defines the new feedback type and augments [ARF]'s field requirements. The latter is part of the former. > BTW, the specification of Delivery-Result is in Section 3.2.2, not > 3.2.1. Right, fixed. > > The third part of the report only contains the header of the message > > causing the report to be generated, which RFC5965 allows. > > Presumably, then, the reported URI came from someplace in the body of > > the message, which isn't shown here (and doesn't need to be, by ARF's > > definitions). > > For that to hold, you may want to add l=53 to the DKIM-Signature, or > replace the following field > [...] I updated it (had some typos), and replaced it in -07. Thanks. -MSK _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
